forward

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only references 'same attachment and proof rules as send' without explaining those rules. It does not disclose mutation behavior, idempotency effects, required identity/auth context, or potential side effects of forwarding on-thread.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loads the core action, and uses a terse reference to send for shared rules. It contains no filler, though the brevity veers toward under-specification rather than polished conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a 10-parameter input schema with no annotation coverage and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves too much unresolved. An agent still needs to consult send to understand attachment/proof rules, and the meaning of 'on-thread' is not elaborated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description offers almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the property names. The only hint is 'attachment and proof rules as send' for attachments_json, but it does not explain required fields like idempotency_key, message_id, to, or account, nor the format of attachments_json.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Forward') and resource ('a message') and adds the distinct 'on-thread' behavior, which sets it apart from a generic send. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like reply, but the action and scope are clear enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Same attachment and proof rules as send' implies that forward inherits usage constraints from send, giving some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose forward over reply or draft_send, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.